Whether an amended judgment of conviction containing only nominal changes that do not disturb the original conviction and sentence should be considered a new judgment that renews a state inmate's ability to challenge his conviction and sentence

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Eight years after his conviction, and on the heels of two unsuccessful federal habeas actions, Alquandre Turner moved to amend his state judgment of conviction to correct a clerical error and add 154 days of credit for time served prior to sentencing. The state district court summarily granted the motion and amended the judgment, but left Turner’s original conviction and corresponding sentence undisturbed. Following entry of the amended judgment, Turner filed a third federal habeas petition. The district court dismissed the petition as an unauthorized successive petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2244(b). Turner accordingly sought leave to file a successive petition from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, while also arguing that his petition was actually a first petition challenging a new judgment. A Ninth Circuit panel agreed, and transferred the case to the district court with instructions to consider the petition as a first petition. The questions presented are: 1. Whether an amended judgment of conviction containing only nominal changes—that do not disturb the original conviction and sentence—should be considered a new judgment that renews a state inmate’s ability to challenge his conviction and sentence. 2. Whether, if a new judgment of conviction is entered, a petitioner who already sought federal habeas relief must obtain authorization to file a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), in order to challenge undisturbed elements of the original judgment.